|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:11AM
#751
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
It may not be worth much bit I think the fighter should be allowed 2 backgrounds at least. That is still a possibility. Maybe even skill tricks are still possible.
Anything's possible, if they change their mind from what they wrote in this Q&A. But nothing's possible if they stick to what they wrote.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:20AM
#752
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
It may not be worth much bit I think the fighter should be allowed 2 backgrounds at least. That is still a possibility. Maybe even skill tricks are still possible.
Anything's possible, if they change their mind from what they wrote in this Q&A. But nothing's possible if they stick to what they wrote.
Actually mournblade's idea would hold to what they wrote today giving them a second background would still hold all the out of combat stuff in backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:22AM
#753
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
It may not be worth much bit I think the fighter should be allowed 2 backgrounds at least. That is still a possibility. Maybe even skill tricks are still possible.
Anything's possible, if they change their mind from what they wrote in this Q&A. But nothing's possible if they stick to what they wrote.
Actually mournblade's idea would hold to what they wrote today giving them a second background would still hold all the out of combat stuff in backgrounds.
True. It really doesn't seem to be what they were suggesting, but if they give a fighter a second background, i guess they'd technically not have to admit to changing their minds
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:25AM
#754
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
It may not be worth much bit I think the fighter should be allowed 2 backgrounds at least. That is still a possibility. Maybe even skill tricks are still possible.
Anything's possible, if they change their mind from what they wrote in this Q&A. But nothing's possible if they stick to what they wrote.
Actually mournblade's idea would hold to what they wrote today giving them a second background would still hold all the out of combat stuff in backgrounds.
True. It really doesn't seem to be what they were suggesting, but if they give a fighter a second background, i guess they'd technically not have to admit to changing their minds
A second background would be a step in the right direction. But it would still leave a socially focused fighter with MAD that other classes don't necessarily have to deal with. In addition it would leave the fighter with more sup par options, but without other mechanical support they would still be sub par.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:39AM
#755
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
It may not be worth much bit I think the fighter should be allowed 2 backgrounds at least. That is still a possibility. Maybe even skill tricks are still possible.
Anything's possible, if they change their mind from what they wrote in this Q&A. But nothing's possible if they stick to what they wrote.
Actually mournblade's idea would hold to what they wrote today giving them a second background would still hold all the out of combat stuff in backgrounds.
True. It really doesn't seem to be what they were suggesting, but if they give a fighter a second background, i guess they'd technically not have to admit to changing their minds
the other part here:
Even if they don't implement this it it is literally the easiest house rule ever made. I know, I know, "I shouldn't have to house rule to get the game I want", frankly for this edition that argument is straight tossed out everyone i9s expected and encouraged to do this. Especially when it comes to something like this. They aren't forcing you to clean up the math* you are literally just adding functionality that you think is lacking. That isn't difficult or unreasonable. It isn't like needing to create entire subsystems to make the thing work or rewriting entire subsystems it is literally...'you know what fighters need more take a second background'. Chances are if they don't include bonus skills on the fighter I will likely do this.
*at least not too much I still say skill mastery is a bit to strong and needs to change.
As an alteration to skill mastery: at level 1 it applies to one skill, at level 3 it applies to two skills, at level 6 it applies to another skill, at level 9 it applies to another skill. Or use this selection to fill other actually dead levels. Possibly make it skill or skill trick (for skill tricks such as climb sheer surfaces).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:47AM
#756
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
"Fix it yourself" is a wonderful way to encourage people to stick with the (essentially) free 3.5e, or whatever systems we already own and wouldn't have to pay any additional money for.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:08PM
#757
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
"Fix it yourself" is a wonderful way to encourage people to stick with the (essentially) free 3.5e, or whatever systems we already own and wouldn't have to pay any additional money for.
if you like your older edition totally stay with it, we aren't coming to take your old books away.
The devs have said something to that effect on a more than regular basis. In fact they are making the old books available again so that people that like these older games can stick with them, and WoTC can still make money.
This edition is specifically marketed as 'build your own game'. Make the game how you like it to be. We give you the foundation, and a bunch of pieces to fit to it. Put the legos together and make yourself the game you want.
The fighter gets a second background is the easiest thing ever, and would seemingly solve a good number of problems some people have.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:17PM
#758
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Even if they don't implement this it it is literally the easiest house rule ever made. I know, I know, "I shouldn't have to house rule to get the game I want", frankly for this edition that argument is straight tossed out everyone i9s expected and encouraged to do this. Especially when it comes to something like this. They aren't forcing you to clean up the math* you are literally just adding functionality that you think is lacking. That isn't difficult or unreasonable. It isn't like needing to create entire subsystems to make the thing work or rewriting entire subsystems it is literally...'you know what fighters need more take a second background'. Chances are if they don't include bonus skills on the fighter I will likely do this.
Except that they've said repeatedly they'd like to include Advanced rules to cover everything that a chunk of the consumership would like. The fact that we have to squint sideways and dig for even an inkling they might do that here indicates that they have a totally tin ear to this.
If they had said, "We understand that the fighter's Background may not be enough, mechanically, to make people feel like a fighter can contribute meaningfully in social situations alongside the other characters with their spells and skill tricks. That's why we intend to offer some Advanced rules that people can add to their fighter to give them more utility in the interaction pillar," I think most people would be happy.
I might grumble that I wish it were in the Standard Rules, but at least I understand that they understand our concern. But this Q&A sounds like they weren't even aware that this is an issue... even thought he question they are answering basically screams that it's an issue. That's why it feels like such a problem.
Sure, I can and have made up my own house rules. But I thought the point of having Advanced Rules was, if enough people want it, they'll provide it.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:34PM
#759
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Even if they don't implement this it it is literally the easiest house rule ever made. I know, I know, "I shouldn't have to house rule to get the game I want", frankly for this edition that argument is straight tossed out everyone i9s expected and encouraged to do this. Especially when it comes to something like this. They aren't forcing you to clean up the math* you are literally just adding functionality that you think is lacking. That isn't difficult or unreasonable. It isn't like needing to create entire subsystems to make the thing work or rewriting entire subsystems it is literally...'you know what fighters need more take a second background'. Chances are if they don't include bonus skills on the fighter I will likely do this.
Except that they've said repeatedly they'd like to include Advanced rules to cover everything that a chunk of the consumership would like. The fact that we have to squint sideways and dig for even an inkling they might do that here indicates that they have a totally tin ear to this.
If they had said, "We understand that the fighter's Background may not be enough, mechanically, to make people feel like a fighter can contribute meaningfully in social situations alongside the other characters with their spells and skill tricks. That's why we intend to offer some Advanced rules that people can add to their fighter to give them more utility in the interaction pillar," I think most people would be happy.
I might grumble that I wish it were in the Standard Rules, but at least I understand that they understand our concern. But this Q&A sounds like they weren't even aware that this is an issue... even thought he question they are answering basically screams that it's an issue. That's why it feels like such a problem.
Sure, I can and have made up my own house rules. But I thought the point of having Advanced Rules was, if enough people want it, they'll provide it.
Vocal Minority
There is a distinct possibility that in the surveys this isn't seen as an issue. That not many in the bulk testing group even sound off about this or even consider it an issue. The Q&A response is likely a direct response to us in the forum. We have been talking in like 5 threads about it for weeks now with some getting quite bitter about it. There is a distinct possibility that the Q&A response represents a consensus reached by many testers that do not reside here on the forums. Even if your whole group thinks it is an issue they could be a drop in the bucket in relation to the supposedly tens of thousands of surveys they recieve that don't note this as a problem. Because I can tell you that my group on average doesn't see this as a problem so really our anectdotals cancel each other out.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:01PM
#760
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
Even if they don't implement this it it is literally the easiest house rule ever made. I know, I know, "I shouldn't have to house rule to get the game I want", frankly for this edition that argument is straight tossed out everyone i9s expected and encouraged to do this. Especially when it comes to something like this. They aren't forcing you to clean up the math* you are literally just adding functionality that you think is lacking. That isn't difficult or unreasonable. It isn't like needing to create entire subsystems to make the thing work or rewriting entire subsystems it is literally...'you know what fighters need more take a second background'. Chances are if they don't include bonus skills on the fighter I will likely do this.
Except that they've said repeatedly they'd like to include Advanced rules to cover everything that a chunk of the consumership would like. The fact that we have to squint sideways and dig for even an inkling they might do that here indicates that they have a totally tin ear to this.
If they had said, "We understand that the fighter's Background may not be enough, mechanically, to make people feel like a fighter can contribute meaningfully in social situations alongside the other characters with their spells and skill tricks. That's why we intend to offer some Advanced rules that people can add to their fighter to give them more utility in the interaction pillar," I think most people would be happy.
I might grumble that I wish it were in the Standard Rules, but at least I understand that they understand our concern. But this Q&A sounds like they weren't even aware that this is an issue... even thought he question they are answering basically screams that it's an issue. That's why it feels like such a problem.
Sure, I can and have made up my own house rules. But I thought the point of having Advanced Rules was, if enough people want it, they'll provide it.
Vocal Minority
There is a distinct possibility that in the surveys this isn't seen as an issue. That not many in the bulk testing group even sound off about this or even consider it an issue. The Q&A response is likely a direct response to us in the forum. We have been talking in like 5 threads about it for weeks now with some getting quite bitter about it. There is a distinct possibility that the Q&A response represents a consensus reached by many testers that do not reside here on the forums. Even if your whole group thinks it is an issue they could be a drop in the bucket in relation to the supposedly tens of thousands of surveys they recieve that don't note this as a problem. Because I can tell you that my group on average doesn't see this as a problem so really our anectdotals cancel each other out.
Thing is that they're not asking about out of combat utility for fighters in their surveys, they don't really have data on it. If people have fixed it in 4th, with s a house rule, then it isn't in their data set from the character builder. The dismissiveness shown in the column is troubling.
|
|
|
